The Statement of George Hutchinson

[DVV]

There's no compelling reason to believe that the real witness even had any descendants.

All the best,
Ben

He had, Ben, don't be so sure!

They all live happily in the cellar of Claybury.

Amitiés,
David

[The Good Michael]

There's no compelling reason to believe that the real witness even had any descendants.

Because so often, family lines just end with the last young male.

Mike

[Sam Flynn]

There's no evidence that Reginald "presented" himself, incidentally. More likely, Melvyn Fairclough and/or Joseph Gorman Sickert contacted anyone with the surname Hutchinson living in the East and received a "positive" response from Reginald.

...a similar technique with which Neal Shelden might have traced many of the victims' families, or by which investigation bureaux track down the nearest kin of those who die intestate. I wouldn't necessarily write off such a tactic, Ben - indeed, it's hard to think of any other means by which one might do this, apart from using various civil registers. A task made easier, in this instance, by the demonstrable dearth of George Hutchinsons with connections to East London.

[Fisherman]

...and, of course, the fact that Reg´s younger brother on these very boards seemingly has confirmed Reg´s wiew of what Toppy had told them about his role in the Kelly affair (apparently without any economical favours for doing so), does in no way weaken the argument that Reg was Toppys son - and told a truthful story on the particular subject of what Toppy had said about his role as the Dorset Street witness.

It would be nice if we could compare the police report signature and Toppys ditto to have this all borne out and confirmed!

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

I wouldn't necessarily write off such a tactic, Ben - indeed, it's hard to think of any other means by which one might do this, apart from using various civil registers

The tactic isn't disastrous in and of itself, Gareth, except inasmuch as it lends itself to abuse by anyone who fancies giving a false response, hence my good-natured piss-taking on a recent podcast of the method presumably employed by Fairclough who - in my suggested scenario - contacted Reg with the question "Are you descended from the George Hutchinson who claimed to have seen Mary Kelly?", only to receive an "Umm....yes!" from Reg who could have been talking nonsense, as I suspect he probably was.

That isn't to say there's any question that Reg was the son of Toppy, nor do I doubt that "JD Hutchinson" was who she claimed she was (i.e. not Reg's younger brother), but I'm afraid it doesn't make the claim to witness fame anymore plausible.

A task made easier, in this instance, by the demonstrable dearth of George Hutchinsons with connections to East London.

Although as Chris Scott astutely observed in reference to Mary Kelly, if we're dealing with a false name, that seemingly "simple" task is rendered nigh on impossible.

Best regards,
Ben

P.S. Oh, and have a "kick", by the way.

[The Good Michael]

Although as Chris Scott astutely observed in reference to Mary Kelly, if we're dealing with a false name, that seemingly "simple" task is rendered nigh on impossible.

Let's put this baby to bed. With the relative dearth of George Hutchinsons that we're dealing with, why on Earth did this murderous swine pick that name? Why not Smith, Johnson, or O'reilly? The police certainly checked out this man, grilled him, and had him escort them around town.
Not only is the idea of his using an alias surmise, but it is yet another effort to put a blanket over a real possibility of learning something about the case, which some don't seem to want to do because of their friggin' agendas. I have just decided on an agenda. It is to bring the reality back to the world of George Hutchinson, and it starts with saying that this idea of an alias is crap. Anyone with a brain can see that it is another of those little niggling pissant musings where someone says, "This is what I think. Prove me wrong." That argument, though perhaps fun as a parlor game, is completely false and makes Ripperology look like horse droppings. How do we know Henry VIII was a Tudor? We have no photos. How do we know Jesus' name wasn't Schlemiel. but he kind of like 'The Annointed One' better? B as in b, and S as in s.

Cheers,

Mike

[Ben]

Let's put this baby to bed. With the relative dearth of George Hutchinsons that we're dealing with, why on Earth did this murderous swine pick that name? Why not Smith, Johnson, or O'reilly?

Why did Herman Webster Mudgett use the alias Henry Howard Holmes and not John Smith or Ed Jones?

You've once again come up with an extremely vacuous and idiotic "objection" that was easily destroyed. "Duh, it wasn't an alias! Cuz if it was, he would have picked a more ordinary name!" decides Mike, with his usual brand of unthinking Homer Simpsonesque stupidity. All that is required to flush that crass observation down the toilet is a basic knowledge of history; an example such as the one above; an awareness of the fact that not all alias-users resort to "ordinary" pseudonyms, not that "George Hutchinson" is remotely obscure.

There. I've taught you something. Something that you were clearly clueless about beforehand. I've disabused you of a fallacy, and according to you that should constitute progress, unless of course your "friggin agenda" has interfered with your digestion of this new knowledge?

The police certainly checked out this man, grilled him, and had him escort them around town.

We have no evidence of how thorough their "checking out" was, or even the extent of their "checking" ability, which, considering that we're dealing with a lodger in the year 1888, would have been markedly reduced in contrast to today. He did not "escort" anyone around town, but rather was requested by the police to accompany them in search of the man he described.

and it starts with saying that this idea of an alias is crap

But the reasons you came up with for refuting the suggestion were indicative of chronic cluelessness on your part, as I've just demonstrated, so if that's the sort of "reality" you want to bring to Hutchville, I'm having none of it.

Keep picking these little fights with me though if you want to kick start the whole thing again.

I'm playing.

[The Good Michael]

Ben,

Everyone knows your agenda. It is as plain as day. You create nonsense and you spew it often enough that others have come to your side, though those with no agenda quickly drop off. Much like Himmler's, your propaganda is seriously flawed, and once you pause from shouting people down long enough, your sieve-like arguments will drip-drop into the deep cesspool where they belong. If you want to argue, keep going. I've gone from being demoralized by the BS you spread to being the messiah of absolution for Hutchinson. I am on a mission from God. Keep it up if you can. Viagra might help.

Cheers,

Mike

[Ben]

I've gone from being demoralized by the BS you spread to being the messiah of absolution for Hutchinson.

Music to my ears.

Fight fire with fire, Mikey! That's what I'm after!

Please assure me that your crusade will involve the type of fatuous drivel that asserts that alias-users only use "common" pseudonyms, and please continue to compare me to one of the orchestrators of the mass extermination of the Jews during WW2. That sort of thing helps immensely, and I can only hope others will join you.

Yes, I do want to keep arguing.

No, I won't pause from shouting you down whenever your observations are as crass as your latest.

It's all too much easily obtainable fun - sorry.

Hutchinson requires you as his "messiah of absolution" as much as an angler requires a trombone, but if people want to re-instigate another Hutch hate-war, I can only take solace in the fact that the latest aggressor is dear ol' hapless Mike, whose latest gem is that anyone who doesn't agree with him must have an "agenda".

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"nor do I doubt that "JD Hutchinson" was who she claimed she was (i.e. not Reg's younger brother), but I'm afraid it doesn't make the claim to witness fame anymore plausible."

That is interesting. So you mean that when the ones that speak for the solution "A" step in in increasing numbers, it does not increase the likeliness that solution "A" is the correct one?
Would that be expandable? If we were to find evidence that each and everyone of Toppys children had stated that Toppy had told them that he was the Dorset Street witness, would that not speak any more in favour of it being true than what is the case with only Reg speaking for it? I thought Reg was the one led astray, playing along for money or fame.

Just how does this construction of yours work? I´m intrigued, and I bet there are more of us who share that sentiment. Most of them would be people who say that the more witnesses that concur on a topic, the larger the chance that they are correct.

Please explain, Ben!

Fisherman

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

If we were to find evidence that each and everyone of Toppys children had stated that Toppy had told them that he was the Dorset Street witness, would that not speak any more in favour of it being true

No.

It would speak more in favour of Toppy himself having been the originator of the false tale, as opposed to one of his children being responsible. It would speak more in favour of Toppy having told his tall tale to more than one of his children, not just Reg. If a father tells all five of his children that Santa's coming at Christmas, it doesn't increase the likelihood of Santa actually coming, and by the same token, the fact that the Toppy's tale may have been told to more than one of his children doesn't increase the plausibility of the tale itself. All it does is increase the likelihood of Toppy being the source.

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Not agreed. Not at all, in fact. Since the claim on behalf of those who dislike the suggestion that Toppy was the Dorset Street witness has always been that Reg may have lied in order to satisfy the authors of the book he participated in, the bottom line has been that Toppy may never have said anything about any knowledge at all about Mary Kelly.
Therefore, any testimony on behalf of more than one of Toppys children telling us that Toppy did indeed claim that he was the witness speaks clearly against the allegations made against Reg - in all probability, Reg did NOT make the story up all by himself.
And that in itself means that the particular alley of making Reg out to be a possible/probable liar on the point in question is effectively closed. And so we move from a situation where we can claim that we have no corroborated evidence telling us that Toppy claimed he was the witness, into another situation altogether - for here we HAVE that corroboration. And that means that we find ourselves on another level when it comes to the credibility of Toppys claims - they are no longer something that Reg would have cooked up independently, but a corroborated matter.
Ergo, we are dealing with an issue where the added testimony has increased the chances that we have found our witness.

Fisherman

[Ben]

Since the claim on behalf of those who dislike the suggestion that Toppy was the Dorset Street witness has always been that Reg may have lied in order to satisfy the authors of the book he participated in, the bottom line has been that Toppy may never have said anything about any knowledge at all about Mary Kelly

Neither of those things are mutually exclusive, Fish:

Toppy could easily have been the originator of a false story, which he related to one or more of his kids.

Reg could easily have embellished that initial false story when communicating with a couple of authors advancing a Royal Conspiracy theory.

I don't believe I ever stated that Reg must have invented the entire story himself. That's a possibility, and it remains a reasonable one, since any one of Reg's relations could have chimed in in "support" of the story that appeared in the Ripper and the Royals without it reflecting a grain of truth, and without their father (Toppy) having told them anything. But there is always the other possibility that Toppy was indeed the originator, and told the false tale to more than one of his children, which they in turn related.

Neither possibility actually increases the credibility of the story. Two children idependently relating their father's tale that Santa comes down the chimney at Christmas doesn't actual increase the likelihood of the Santa-chimney story being true.

All it does is pinpoint either Toppy or Reg as the originator of the tale.

[richardnunweek]

Hello Ben,
Opinions are what keeps Casebook alive, no one should doubt that, however we are on opposite sides when it comes to the Topping question.
I am of the opinion that Topping was the witness Hutchinson , this is based on strong form credentials, not only Regs small part in Faircloughs book.
you form the opinion that he was not the witness, based on intuition, and the police statement, which you find impossible to believe, because of that he becomes 'Mr Sinister'.
The fact is that statement was made by a man calling himself George Hutchinson, signed to the fact that it was a truthful account, so who are we to dispute that, especially as that statement appears to have partially been told to a family of Hutchinsons, in which a man called George Topping claimed to have been that witness, and was able to relay to at least one son Reg, details that only the real Hutch could possibly know.
If one adds that to the signature comparisons, which are similar to say the least, and the absolute fact that no one else in history has come foreward saying they were that witness, surely the balance of proof sways towards proven in favour of Topping.....
Regards Richard.

[Ben]

The fact is that statement was made by a man calling himself George Hutchinson, signed to the fact that it was a truthful account, so who are we to dispute that

Discerning commentators, I would dearly hope, Richard.

I'm afraid that simply signing ones name doesn't automatically make an account truthful. You have to look at the content of the statement itself, and as one classic piece of journalistic understatement observed, it "engenders a feeling of scepticism". Added to which, there's the plentiful and compelling indications that Hutchinson's statement was credited shortly after it was made public. There's the family tale that asserts that Toppy was the individual in question, but I'm sceptical of that family claim for various reasons, not least of which is the suggestion that Toppy was paid hush money for keeping quiet about having seen Lord Randolph Churchill the Ripper with Mary Jane Kelly.

So no, the balance of probability weighs heavily against Toppy being the witness, in my view, and there's no signifiance whatsoever to be invested in the fact that no other descendants have come forward. How many other characters from 1888 have had descendants who have made themselves known over the years?

Best regards,
Ben